Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Present at the Destruction
The United States has a pretty good track record at winning wars, but there is only one important conflict in recent memory where we also won the peace. Fortunately, this singular victory occurred in conjunction with the largest of them all, World War II.
The postwar peace was the result of an extraordinary work of American statecraft. It occurred because a very serious and smart group of men realized that, if the fruits of the hard won victory were not to turn rotten again, the flaws in the world system that had led to the global conflagration needed to be corrected. So they created two critical institutions. The first was the Western alliance, later formalized as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), to provide for collective security of the democratic world, and thereby decisively deter any future totalitarian aggression. The second was a system of international free trade, formalized as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, later renamed the World Trade Organization), to enable global economic recovery and prosperity, thereby ensuring the continued stability and growing strength of the democracies themselves.
These two pillars of the postwar order – NATO and GATT – lay the foundation of a world so much more peaceful and prosperous than the prior chaos that one its leading architects, Truman Administration Secretary of State Dean Acheson, entitled his memoir Present at the Creation.
The creators of the postwar order built on the basis of hard won knowledge. Free trade is necessary for economic prosperity for the same reason that long distance transport is. Everyone understands that advances like the Erie Canal and the transcontinental railroad greatly accelerated American economic development by cheapening internal transportation costs. But imagine that the government put a tax on movement via such systems so that they cost more to deliver goods than previous methods of transportation. In that case, the great canals and railroads would be rendered as useless as if they had been physically destroyed, and US economic development would have been crippled. Similarly, international tariffs do as much harm to the world economy as would be done by a sinking all the most advanced merchant ships. Thus it was the trade war, initiated by the US Smoot-Hawley tariff bill and similar measures taken by foreign governments that made the Great Depression great.
The creators learned from this. Similarly, they also learned from the debacle of the 1930s what happens when democracies abandon their collective security arrangements and allow tyrants to start picking off their weaker members one at a time. So they put in place something that was called the Free World, within which enterprise and trade could prosper, without fear of either excessive intergovernmental interference or external attack. The result was the greatest period of economic growth that the world has ever seen. America was transformed from poverty-riddled depression America to suburbia America, with a vast middle class owning homes, cars, and televisions and sending their children to college. Europe and Japan were completely rebuilt, with South Korea, Taiwan, and numerous other previously undeveloped countries lifting themselves out of hunger and desperation as well. Furthermore, despite the continued existence of two very dangerous totalitarian potential adversaries, the general peace was preserved.
As a result of this profound success, whatever the differences between the two major parties may have been on other issues, these two fundamental bedrock principles underlying the creation and continuation of the post-1945 world order have remained uncontroversial among serious political leaders for the seven decades ever since.
Unfortunately, this has now changed. In both major parties, powerful figures have arisen who are challenging this long-held consensus. Among the Democrats, the chief usurper is the Marxian socialist Bernie Sanders. Among the Republicans, it is the national socialist Donald Trump. Both would gut the Western alliance. Both would wreck the system of global free trade. Both would cause a global depression. Both would unleash the dogs of war. While their rhetoric is quite different, on the central issue of defending or betraying the Pax Americana, the program of both is the same.
It is to be expected that a rabid left-wing socialist like Bernie Sanders would support such a program, and one must be thankful that the remaining Atlanticist forces within the Democratic Party appear to have him and his faction in check – at least for this election year. But what can one say of the Republicans and allegedly “right wing” radical Donald Trump? National Review founder William F. Buckley used to say that conservatives should support the most conservative electable candidate. Hillary Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s deleterious liberal policies for four more years. So she is certainly no conservative. But Donald Trump would destroy the Western alliance and the world economy. On the basis of that comparison, if the two were to face off in November, as incredible as it may seem, William F. Buckley would have no choice but to vote for Clinton. Surely we can do better.
Is the Pax Americana worth preserving? Do we prefer the world as it has been since 1945 to the world as it was before 1945? Will the Republican Party still fight to help preserve and improve that world? Or will its epitaph be Present at the Destruction?
Published in Foreign Policy
That’s ok. Cervantes enjoyed making fun of elites also.
Coy and cryptic, just like a like it. It helps keep the conversation going, and helps it stay productive. Thanks TKC!
This sounds like a debate about the necessary and proper clause – very cool. Hamilton, Jefferson, or Madison? It sound like anonymous is with Jefferson.
The Tax Court is an Article 1 Court that was established under the Revenue Act of 1942.
Friends, you can complain all you like about the postwar arrangements – and Eastern Europeans, in particular, have plenty to justly complain about – but the fundamental question boils down to this:
Do you prefer the world order that has prevailed since 1945, or that which prevailed before 1945?
If free trade goes away, prosperity goes away. If collective security goes away, peace goes away.
The peace and prosperity that those of us born since the war have grown up with was bought for us at an incredible price. Are we really willing to be the ones who throw it all away?
I think many on this thread would say yes, because it’s too expensive, and someone else should pay for it. And peace and prosperity are not worth sending our troops anywhere for. I think that is a strong current in American politics, and I think a few responding to your article believe strongly in America isolating itself and letting other countries’ problems fester until we are called upon to defend ourselves from another “deliberate and malicious attack.”
I don’t think that Jamie’s understanding of an “Article I court” is correct.
Article I gives Congress the right to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” But the Tribunals so constituted are “Article III courts” — i.e. they are part of the judicial branch, defined in Article III of the Constitution. Among other things, Article III gives life tenure to judges, and provide for appointment by the President (with Senate approval).
“Article I courts” are usually housed within administrative agencies. The “judges” of these Article I courts don’t have life tenure, and can be appointed in other ways. I put “judges” in quotes because there is controversy about whether a magistrate or hearing officer serving on an Article I court is a “judge” in a Constitutional sense.
[Redacted for CoC]
The SEC has recently received adverse rulings against the validity of its courts.
Schiff is correct about the absence in the tax code. I believe the $50k reward still stands.
At least the SSU threads had a few laughs. This is getting ridiculous.
It is amazing the number of people that are giving up Ricochet because of this nonsense.
PTB may redact this and that is understandable given CoC, Main Feed, etc. but this is darn funny and appropriate. Well played Rudert.
And that is why Nixon had no choice but to close the gold window.
“It’s like a dinner party” they say…
That was a typo. Meant to read “Donner party”.
Yeah, like the Manson Family Thanksgiving….
Then why Douglas is Putin propping up Assad, the very thug dictator that has caused the Syrian refugee crisis? Why has Russia built and positioned naval units in the Middle East? Why is even Obama, a dove to say the least, suddenly arming up Eastern Europe? Putin’s latest trick is getting a piece of Israel’s oil- again, he has BIG plans. Dig in and read. This is just this week – Putin stirs the pot, then comes to the rescue – old trick – old vicious dog.
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-and-syria-sign-deals-worth-850-million-2016-4
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-russia-wants-share-in-israeli-gas-1001119921
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-flies-22s-romania-show-strength-russia-38650499
I think many of us don’t realize how monumental the post-WWII European order is. War has been a function of the European condition from time immemorial, and even peaces such as established at Westphalia and Vienna were rather fragile things. Granted, Europe’s health is not perfect right now, but it’s not as if we have Germany and France waiting to have ago at one another or Italy in a constant state of warfare. While Russia’s antics are worrisome, they have too many internal problems to be able to effectively project power consistently.
Which was more like a potluck … hosted by Hannibal Lecter.
This is exactly right.
So the post-1945 world can never be subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns, like just about everything else in this world? Can the US ever be boxed in as a world superpower, or find that the rest of the world doesn’t really need it that much?
Note:
Lay off the name-calling.You are absolutely right, BrentB67. I should know better than to [redacted], especially when ones viewpoint is so irksome to others..
No more nonsense from me sir. Sorry to disturb.
Is your real name Pat Buchanan, or Bernie Sanders?
Note:
Gentlemen, enough.Are you OK sir? Do you need help getting home? Is there someone I can call? I am worried about you.
Absolutely.
And I don’t mean to disparage NATO. One of my husband’s nephews was a U.S. Air Force computer systems geek who was assigned to NATO headquarters in Brussels. It is a noble organization that has remained true to its original founding vision. When the world blows up, there will be peace among the various countries’ representatives to NATO, and the world could reconstitute itself in an improved version from those good and intelligent peace-building people. :)
I just continue to be troubled over the results of the treaties and agreements that were made in the immediate aftermath of World War II. So many problems that we have had since were visible then and ignored.
I was thinking about this discussion last night, and a couple of things occurred to me.
One, we’ve outgrown those trade agreements of the last century that were so well done that they led to the past few years of peace and prosperity. The trade landscape has changed and our agreements need to change with it. The old air-conditioner lasted long enough to keep us cool while we designed and built the new one. :)
Two, just as many people have said about Muslims’ needing a reformation of sorts, I think the world’s labor needs a labor union growth phase.
Perhaps the American labor unions will export their organizing techniques throughout the world.
I think that needs to happen, and perhaps it will on its own.
Free trade has enriched many despots throughout the world, while their own people are hurting. Any time there is such uneven wealth being accrued, there will be unrest.
American unions achieved much by organizing. The gains they achieved are evaporating here and everywhere else because of globalization.
Although I have believed that trade unions had outlived their usefulness, I am suddenly wondering if they are actually the answer to the volatile economic peace we are seeing right now throughout the world.